iBores
in [UK Mac]
|
From: John DoH on 13 Jun 2010 08:03 In article <1jjzpne.1awy2t45srvpxN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes well, there's a great deal that is better than that or than the book > > > > reviewed. The book itself presents nothing new and appears to offer no > > > > unique insights. > > > > > > > > It was done better a long time ago by Giancarlo Livraghi in his book > > > > "The Power of Stupidity". > > > > > > That would be the one published in May, 2009. Obviously a long time > > > before 2007. > > > > > > > http://gandalf.it/stupid/chapters.htm > > > > > > I wonder if there's a book called "The Power of Rancor". > > > > Do leave him in peace. > > Pd, why not just killfile the Firth creature? > > I did so years ago. Liar! > > Life's better if you avoid sneering snidely at people. Then stop it, Rowland. > > Rowland. > (coal black when he peers in the mirror, thinking of talking to his > friend the pot) What a shame, you were behaving quite well and then you have to start your personal abuse attacks again, stop it Rowland, behave yourself. -- "Telling someone to kill themselves is not harmful: it's merely me expressing an opinion. You try to drive people to suicide - that's evil. My behaviour is perfectly okay; your behaviour is evil - plain and simple evil." Rowland McDonnell - 9th. Mar. 2009
From: Rowland McDonnell on 13 Jun 2010 09:18 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > > The justification for [Andrew Wakefield's] actions *never* turned on > > > evidence. No amount of evidence would have justified his behaviour. > > > > What exactly was his flawed behaviour - not the vague statements above, > > what *exactly* did he do? I've not read of any details of his behaviour > > that could cause me to agree with the prosecution case as you present > > it. > > The exact circumstances of his: > > * dishonesty > * failing to disclose very serious conflicts of interest > * conducting invasive medical investigations for which he was > unqualified > * and conducting them without approval > * and conducting them against the interests of the patients > * purchasing blood samples from children at a birthday party > * dishonest use of Legal Aid Board funds > > are pretty well documented, and don't need me to restate them. [snip] It's just struck me that this is the problem, the mode of argument you're using. All those allegations you're making against him are presented without evidence. And you stated: "The exact circumstances of his: <BLAH> are pretty well documented, and don't need me to restate them." which is dishonest arguing, a bit of pre-emptive mud-flinging. The implication you are making is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is ill-informed - too ignorant to have a valid opinion on the subject. That kind of dishonesty is a problem - mud flung always sticks, doesn't it, Daniele? Right - so you're being dishonest here. I have as it happened read about the allegations you mention - and, for example, `purchasing blood samples from children at a party' makes it sound like he was doing someone grossly improper. But I've read *one* account of the behaviour which led to that allegation, and it seems to me that that particular allegation is dishonest, because the tale *I* read of how he came to be accused of impropriety in that case was that he did something perfectly okay and got subjected to a witch-hunt which decided to mis-represent the events to get him into hot water. That's the evidence I've seen - and yet you claim that it's all clear, cut-and-dried, doesn't need any more discussion. And that is wrong - not only wrong, but also immoral, given that we're talking about seriously bad effects on lives. Not one life would have been lost if the government hadn't behaved properly - which would have been to permit access to the vaccines that people still trusted, while sorting out the doubts in their minds about the proposed replacement using a decent method. Instead, we got a witch hunt and a government acting to kill kids with measles because it refused to let children have the safe and effective vaccine that their parents trusted. Those cases of measles were all caused by government bull-headedness, all caused by the government decision to refuse to let parents choose a known safe and effective vaccine for their children. Oh yeah, and the alleged reason for forcing the single jab on everyone was to save money. Bloody hasn't worked, has it? Not with the increase in cases of measles and so on. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: D.M. Procida on 13 Jun 2010 10:36 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > The exact circumstances of his: > > > > * dishonesty > > * failing to disclose very serious conflicts of interest > > * conducting invasive medical investigations for which he was > > unqualified > > * and conducting them without approval > > * and conducting them against the interests of the patients > > * purchasing blood samples from children at a birthday party > > * dishonest use of Legal Aid Board funds > > > > are pretty well documented, and don't need me to restate them. > > [snip] > > It's just struck me that this is the problem, the mode of argument > you're using. > > All those allegations you're making against him are presented without > evidence. Much of the evidence comes from his own statements. For example, he admits pretty much all the actions that add up to the "very serious conflicts of interest" charges, but denies that they represent a conflict of interest. He admits performing certain procedures on children, but denies that doing so amounted to gross misconduct. And so on. > And you stated: "The exact circumstances of his: <BLAH> are pretty well > documented, and don't need me to restate them." > > which is dishonest arguing, a bit of pre-emptive mud-flinging. The > implication you are making is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is > ill-informed - too ignorant to have a valid opinion on the subject. > That kind of dishonesty is a problem - mud flung always sticks, doesn't > it, Daniele? Right - so you're being dishonest here. The evidence and the judgement, in its great detail, are all available online. > Oh yeah, and the alleged reason for forcing the single jab on everyone > was to save money. Bloody hasn't worked, has it? Not with the increase > in cases of measles and so on. That's incorrect. The reason for a combined vaccination is that what happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). Daniele
From: Steve Firth on 13 Jun 2010 11:17 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > That's incorrect. The reason for a combined vaccination is that what > happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% > of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the > third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual > figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). Well, I get the point that you're wrong. The variables are not independent, so it's incorrect to multiply probabilities as you are doing. For a vaccination programme it's fairly clear that the 90% of parents who ensure their children are vaccinated in the first round will be most likely to be the same 90% who get their children vaccinated in the next rounds. Hence overall the proportion immunised with all three vaccines tends to be close to 90%. If you're going to give smug answers it's best to examine the answer for the gaping flaw in one's logic before giving that answer. FWIW the actually uptake is in the range 82 -86% according to the WHO. You may now wibble about my answer being "technical" me being "mad" and hence perform your usual face-saving exercise. Or not if you want to act like an adult for once.
From: James Jolley on 13 Jun 2010 11:45
On 2010-06-13 16:17:19 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) said: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > >> That's incorrect. The reason for a combined vaccination is that what >> happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% >> of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the >> third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual >> figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). > > Well, I get the point that you're wrong. The variables are not > independent, so it's incorrect to multiply probabilities as you are > doing. For a vaccination programme it's fairly clear that the 90% of > parents who ensure their children are vaccinated in the first round will > be most likely to be the same 90% who get their children vaccinated in > the next rounds. Hence overall the proportion immunised with all three > vaccines tends to be close to 90%. > > If you're going to give smug answers it's best to examine the answer for > the gaping flaw in one's logic before giving that answer. > > FWIW the actually uptake is in the range 82 -86% according to the WHO. > > You may now wibble about my answer being "technical" me being "mad" and > hence perform your usual face-saving exercise. Or not if you want to act > like an adult for once. He won't, you forget, he's a failed philosopher hense the reason why his wife's getting the pH.d and not him. In other words, he spends more time talking shite than doing something useful. |